Conduit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('Returns: For single: { pageId, name, isActive }, for batch: Array<{ pageId, name, isActive }>'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention other traits like error handling, permissions, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second detailing the return format. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without waste. It could be slightly improved by integrating the return details more seamlessly, but it's efficient overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and the return format, which is sufficient for basic use. However, it lacks context on usage scenarios, error cases, or how it fits with sibling tools, making it minimally viable but not fully comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond this, but since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate—it doesn't need to compensate for missing param info.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get info for one, many, or all pages.' It specifies the verb ('Get info') and resource ('pages'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_doc_pages' or 'get_node_info', which might have overlapping functionality in a design context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that it can handle 'one, many, or all pages,' but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for retrieving basic metadata versus detailed page data compared to siblings like 'get_doc_pages'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.